Bacchylides' "Ode 7 Again" Marcovich, Miroslav Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1970; 11, 3; ProQuest pg. 181

Bacchylides' Ode 7 Again 

Miroslav Marcovich 

'rJJ AL7Tapa 86yaTEp Xp6vov TE ~[al. 
N ' \ , [-<' VKTOC, CE 7TEVTY/KOVTa ft 7]vwv aftEpav 
€KKaLOEKaTav EV 'OAVft7T[t&L [UAOIp? 

.. . ]f?apv{:3p['VTa KpovLoao?] EKan 

5 .. . ]~TOcaLftt;t[ 
~pLVELV Ta[XVTaTa TE] AaLVnJpwv 7TOOWV 
"EAAaCL Kat yv[Lwv a]pLCTaAKEC c8ivoc 
of' ~ \ \ f3 '[ ]' I WL DE CV 7TpEC v TaTO v VEtft7]LC yEpac 

vLKac, €7T' av8p[am ]9LCLV Ev8otoc KEKA.'Y}-
10 'TaL Kat 7TOAV~~[AW'T ]9C. 'Ap~C['TOft]~[EL]OV 

... J' €KOCJL1J[cac C'TE]cpav[OLCt iMxw]va 

W HO is the invoked goddess? 
(1) Jebb suggested the personified Hemera (with refer­

ence to Hesiod, Theogony 124, 'Hemera daughter ofNight').1 
This identification was accepted by Desrousseaux,2 Blass,3 Jurenka,4 
Suess,s Edmonds,6 Sne1l7 and Maehler.8 

(2) But Wilamowitz suggested Selene,9 and Jane Harrison inde­
pendently Hecate-Selene instead.10 The former referred to Pausanias 

1 R. C. Jebb, apud F. G. Kenyon's ed.pr. (London 1897) and in his own edition of Bacchy­
!ides (Cambridge 1905). 

2 A. M. Desrousseaux, "Notes sur Bacchylide," RevPhil22 (1898) 187. 
3 BacchylidiS Carmina cum fragmentis, ed. F. Blass (BT, Leipzig 1898), as in his 3rd ed. of 

1904. 
4 Die neugefundenen Lieder des Bakchylides, ed. H. Jurenka (Vienna 1898). 
54th Teubner ed., cur. W. Suess (Leipzig 1912). 
6 J. M. Edmonds, but with a different text, in "Some Notes on the Great Bacchylides 

Papyrus," CR 37 (1923) 148= Lyra Graeca III (LCL, London 1927) pp.160-61. 
75th Teubner ed. B. Snell (Leipzig 1934)= 8th ed. (1961). 
8 Bakchylides, Lieder und Fragmente, ed. H. Maehler (Berlin 1968). 
9 Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, GGA 160 (1898) 130. 
10 J. E. Harrison, "Ode VII" in "Notes on Bacchylides," CR 12 (IS9S) 140-41. 

lSI 



182 BACCHYLIDES' ODE 7 AGAIN 

5.1.4 (Selene's fifty daughters by Endymion), the latter to Bacchylides' 
hymn to Hecate, fr.lB Snell: 

<E I ~ •• ~ ,/.. I Ka'rft. ..•• oaLOo't'0P€, 
'Tav L€[p ••. 

NVK'TOC /-,€lt.avoK6lt.7TOV (JVya'T€p .•. 

Harrison also compared Bacchylides 7.1 It.t7Tapa (}&ya'T€p with the Homeric 
Hymn to Demeter 25= 438 tEKa'TT/ It.t7TapoKpfj8€/-,voc. 

(3) Furthermore, Steudingll established Hecate's concern with the 
competitions in sport by referring to Hesiod, Theogony 435-38, Ec(}lt.~ 0' 
av()' 67T6'T' avop€c &€(}It.€t~wc' EV &ywv£ K'TIt.. 12 and to Apollonius Rhodius 
3.1211, Bp£/-,w K£Klt.7]CKWV Oason] tEKa'TT/v E7Tapwyov &I(}lt.wv.13 

(4) Finally, in a recent paper14 Mrs Gail Pieper came back to Harri­
son's Hecate, trying to defend it especially by stressing the link between 
the full moon and the Olympic games: cf Pindar, Olympian 3.19-20, 
8£X6f.L7Jv£c ... 1 ... M7]va (with the corresponding scholia vetera, e.g. ad 01. 
3 35 D h ~, " \ \' \ I " " . a rac mann,o'Xo/-'7Jv£c, <on> 7T€P' 'TT/v ,5' 7TaVC€I\7Jvov ovc7Jc aY€'Ta, 
'Ta 'Olt.v/-,7T£a) and Olympian 10.75. 

Now I would raise here the following objections to the candidacy 
of Hecate in our Ode 7, defending Jebb's Hemera. 

(1) There is no evidence for Chronos being father of Hecate. Dr 
Pieper suggests (pp.233-34) that Chronos as father for Hecate in 
Bacchylides fr.lB is easily understood by its connexion with Chronos 
mentioned in Ode 7. But this is a circular argument: we still don't 
know whether Hecate is meant in this Ode 7. Her second argument is 
not better: "Bacchylides may well have in mind Pindar's Xp6voc 6 

7TaV'TWV 7Ta'T7]p (Ol. 2.17)." If so, then Chronos could be used as father 
for any deity we like (Hemera not being excluded). 

Thus, while Harrison and Pieper have produced no evidence for 
Chronos as Hecate's father, I think that Chronos as the father of 
Hemera can be supported by Euripides, Supplices 787-88 (lyr.) Xp6voc 
7Talt.a,OC 7Ta~p I ... ap€pav.15 

11 H. Steuding, in Roscher, MythLex 1.2 (1886-1890) 1892.5-10, S.V. HEKATE. 

12 M. L. West's reading in his ed. Hesiod, Theogony (Oxford 1966), cf p.287. 
13 Steuding's third reference, Pluto De Herod. malign. 862A, is not apt, for we must read 

there with Valckenaer and L. Pearson (Plutarch's Moralia XI [LCL, Cambridge (Mass.) and 
London 1965] pp.54-55 with n.a) rij~ ;KTTJ~ instead of the transmitted rij~ • EKa.T'T}~. 

14 "The Prooemium of Bacchylides' Ode 7," GRBS 10 (1969) 229-34. 
15 Quoted by O. Waser, RE 3 (1899) 2482.10 S.V. CHRONOS 2. 



MIROSLA V MARCOVICH 183 

(2) It seems to me that Favorinus' testimony strongly suggests 
Hemera in Ode 7:16 ••• €C fl-{CtJl TCtVT7JJI fl-EA€T7JJI apETfjc ~vJlTEAoVJlTWJI'loov 

, , t I ()' , ((' ..... " " 
TOLJlVV 7TCXPECTLJI 7J KVPLCt 7TpO ECfl-LCt, OV 7TEVT7JKOJlTCt fl-7JJlWJI KCtTCt TOJI 

II , ~ .. '" ~ 1 ,. II '\ " 'J,.~' A 1\ 1 LJluCtPOJl Ctfl-EpCt EKKCtW€KCtTCt, €I\07TOC 7J TLJlOC oCtWV .:JCtKTVI\OV JlOp,WL 

7TpOC 7TCtV[ (lacuna). 
Now Sncllinay well be right in conjecturingll€..\of in line 3,17 But his 

alternative suggestion C8ECCXJl .•• sc. Dactyli, quos CtZp,ovac v.5 nomina­
tos esse putes") has no chance of life, since Favorinus in the words 
if TLJlOC ']oa{ov LlaKTvAov is clearly alluding to Heracles only (in view of 
Strabo 8.355, Eva TWV 'Ioa{wv Ll aKTvAwv' HpaKAEa ; Diodorus 5.64.6, ailTwv 

Eva . .. 'HpaKA€a; Pausanias 5.7.6, 5.7.9, 5.14.7). We can explain why 
Favorinus avoids mentioning the name of Heracles here: Heracles is 
his (and the Cynics') ideal fighter EV TWLTfjc apETfjc cTao{wL,18 and as such 
cannot possibly be the founder of the Olympic games-a view rejected 
by our author. 

Thus, it may be that Favorinus had found Pelops in his original, 
showing off his rhetorical erudition19 by adding the alternative late 
version about the Idaean Dactyl Heracles as the founder of the 
Olympiad.20 To be sure, where Pindar follows the myth of Heracles 
as the founder of the games,21 he certainly does not have in mind the 
Idaean Dactyl. Finally, the word Jl0fl-WL is a mannerism of Favorinus 
(cf. 4.3 YVVClLKOC VOp,WL; 5.41 aywvwv VOfl-WL; 6.17 <vopA.owv? > V0f-tWL). 

(3) Harrison' s (and Pieper's) comparison of7.1 Amapa OvyaTEp with the 
Homeric Hymn to Demeter 25 = 438 'EKaT7] AmapoKp~O€f.('Jloc proves 
nothing. First, if the epithet Amapa, 'shining, radiant, resplendent, 
bright', is suitable to the moon goddess, it is even more so if applied to 
the goddess of the daylight. But it is also quite possible that Bacchyl­
ides in AmCtpa OvyaTEp had in mind just the healthy look and the 
beauty of a sleek-skinned young woman: cf. his Ode 5.169 AmapaJl ... 

aKOLTLJI (where Jebb's interpretation 'queenly, for a richly adorned 
bride' is refuted by Homeric Hymn to Demeter 79 8aAEp~JI ... aKOLTLJI and 
by Pindar, Nemean 1.71 OaAEpaJl tI Hf1aJl aKOLTLJI: a 'blooming, buxom 

16 Favorin. IIfpl rpvyfjc col. 4.46-50, in II papiro vaticano greco 11, edd. M. Norsa and G. 
Vitelli (Studi e testi 53, Vatican 1931). 

17 Cf e.g. Pind. 01. 9.9 and Bacchyl. 5.181, 8.31. 
18 Cf. Favorin. IIfpl rpuyfjc 6.3-4, 3.32ff, 21.8 (supra n.16). 
19 Cf W. Schmid, RE Suppl. 6 (1935) 68.29-50, S.V. FAVORINUS. 

20 Cf also O. Kern, RE 4 (1901) 2019 S.V. DAKTYLOI, and O. Gruppe, RE Suppl. 3 (1918) 

916-17 S.V. HERAKLES. 

21 01. 2.3, 3.11ff, 6.68, 10.22ff; Nem. 10.33, 11.27. 

2-G.R.B.S. 



184 BACCHYLIDES' ODE 7 AGAIN 

bride'). Callimachus (Epigram 5.5 Pf.) invokes Arsinoe-Aphrodite as 
AL'TT'ap~ ()EOC; Theocritus (2.102-03) has AL1Tapoxpwv ••. LUACPtv; Catullus 
uses (2.5) desiderio mea nitenti; (61.185-86) uxor . .. ore jloridulo nitens, 
etc.22 

Secondly, AL'TT'apOKp~SEfJ,VOC 'with a bright headband' is something 
different. And besides, Hecate is not the only one who possesses such a 
'mantilla'; it is common to Rhea (in the same Hymn to Demeter, v.459), 
Charis (Iliad 18.382), Hecuba (22.406), Penelope (Odyssey 1.334, 16.416, 
18.210, 21.65), Mnamosyna (Pindar, Nemean 7.15 AL'TT'apafJ,1Tvg), and 
1Tap()EvoL (Pindar, Paean 2.99); and (by the tyranny of epic oral versc­
making) the battlements crowning the walls of Troy (Iliad 16.100) 

are also called AL'TT'apa (Odyssey 13.388). 
(4) Dr Pieper's last argument against Hemera reads (p.231): 

"The only celebration on the sixteenth of which we have definite 
knowledge is the public feast in the Prytaneum, which occurred in 
the evening (Paus. 5.15.12)." It is easily refuted by Bacchylides himself. 
No matter which goddess is meant in Ode 7, she is said to decide (v.6 
KpLVELV) about the winner, to award him the prize (vv.8-9 VELfJ,TJLC 

yEpac vLKac), and to adorn him with crowns (v.U EKocfJ,'Y}cac C'TEcpavoLCL) 

on this very sixteenth day of the month (vv.2-3 afJ,EpaV EKKaLSEKa'Tav). 

Thus, Ode 7 is a precious piece of evidence for the crowning of the 
winning athletes on the last (sixteenth) day of the Olympic games (in 
452 B.C.). It goes well with schol.vet. ad Pind. Ol. 3.35d Drachmann 
(Kat 'T7]L EKKaLSEKa'T'Y}L YLVE'TaL ~ Kplccc) and with schol.rec. ad 01. 5.8 
B kh ( \, 'A , \ A' ~, ''I' \ "'()' ,~ ,~ ) 23 oec KaL E'TEI\EL'TO fJ,EXPL KaL 'TTJC EKKaLOEKa'TTJc, EV TJL 'Ta a I\a EOLOO'TO • 

It is true that we don't know whether the ceremony took place 
during the day or in the evening; but the point is that this lack of 
evidence cannot be used as an argument against Hemera and for 
Hecate. 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

April, 1970 

23 The same semantic evolution, 'shiny with oil, anointed'> 'beautiful', lives e.g. in the 
Serbo-Croat lep 'beautiful' from the same root as At1TapOc. 

23 So also J. Wiesner, RE 18 (1939) 27-28, S.V. OLYMPIA.